78 Asking, listening, understanding: Establishing parent and youth priorities in child health research
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Primary Subject area Advocacy Background A growing body of literature supports the active involvement of stakeholders in the prioritization and dissemination of evidence-based health care information. However, in child health related research, the perspectives of parents and youth are rarely acknowledged. Objectives To engage parents and youth in identifying and developing priority lists of research topics that are most relevant and important to youth and their families. Design/Methods We engaged parents and youth across Alberta in a modified James Lind Alliance priority setting exercise. Two lists, containing 27 topics were developed and modified in consultation with local parent and youth advisory groups. The respective lists were sent to parents and youth via online surveys. The anonymous surveys asked parents and youth to rank the topics by rating the degree (5-point Likert scale) to which they agreed the topic was a priority for child health research. All topics rated “Agree” or “Strongly Agree” by ≥ 70% of respondents were retained for discussion. Online focus groups (utilizing deliberative dialogue) to discuss priority topics were held with parents and youth, separately. Focus group discussions were analyzed using thematic analysis; resultant themes and subthemes were used to produce representative research questions. These were then sent via a second online survey to all participating parents and youth, who were asked to rank their ‘top 10’ most important child health research topics. Ethics approval was received from our institutional ethics board, and all participants gave informed consent or assent, prior to any data collection. Results Initial surveys were completed by 273 parents and 344 youth. This resulted in 5 highly rated health research topics for parents (behaviour, learning, and developmental disorders; mental health; food, environment and lifestyle; quality of health care; and vaccines) and 4 for youth (brain and nerve health, mental health, quality of health care, and vaccines), respectively. The research questions stemming from four parent (n=12) and six youth (n=21) focus group discussions were ranked in a second survey, completed by 43 parents and 62 youth. Parents’ highest ranked research topic was “effect of screen time on children’s neurodevelopment”, while the highest ranked topic from youth was “early signs of anxiety and depression in children and youth” (Tables 1 & 2). Conclusion Utilizing the knowledge and experience of Albertan parents and youth, relevant lists of priority topics in child health research were developed. These lists highlight the areas where funding and research should be directed to improve child health outcomes and patient care experiences that are important to parents and youth.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,011 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,006 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,006 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».